A Tear In The Sky - Nimitz/Tic-Tac/Catalina UFO Documentary

[Itsme]

illusory pattern perception. or connecting-the-dots.

Could the opposite also be a thing? An urge to disconnect the dots.

I mean, if you send out two jets to a radar target that displayed anomalous behavior, and at merge plot the pilots also observe an object showing anomalous behavior, the dots are connected. At least they would be in any "normal" situation. Imagine the object simply being a small plane, nobody would argue in that case that the radar return was something different.

That does not mean we have solid scientific evidence that the radar return and the visible object were the same, but to say that assuming they are the same is a case of "illusory pattern perception" goes a bit too far in my opinion.

 

[FatPhil]

But was it a mistake?

Yes, birds do not locate themselves randomly in space and independently of each other. Which I said already. I do not appreciate having to repeat myself.

 

[Ann K]

hot afternoon downunder and i just watched/endured this on TV,, what bad plot & movie.

Ooh, I remember that one (A Tear in the Sky) although I had forgotten the name. I found it entertaining ...but I was forty years younger at the time! I can't digest woo nearly as well these days.

 

[scombrid]

Yes, birds do not locate themselves randomly in space and independently of each other. Which I said already. I do not appreciate having to repeat myself.

I was questioning the motives. Against the rules I know. But I have a substantial problem believing that such an obvious 'mistake' wasn't deliberate.

 

[FatPhil]

I was questioning the motives. Against the rules I know. But I have a substantial problem believing that such an obvious 'mistake' wasn't deliberate.

Ah, sorry, you were a bit too subtle, internet fora are a terrible place for nuance.

A lie, rather than a mistake, would be a terrible gambit, because the optics upon discovery are even worse.

Then again, are having 0.007 credibility and having 0.000...eighty-six-zeroes...2 credibility really that different from each other?

 

[deirdre]

I mean, if you send out two jets to a radar target that displayed anomalous behavior, and at merge plot the pilots also observe an object showing anomalous behavior, the dots are connected. At least they would be in any "normal" situation. Imagine the object simply being a small plane, nobody would argue in that case that the radar return was something different.

That does not mean we have solid scientific evidence that the radar return and the visible object were the same, but to say that assuming they are the same is a case of "illusory pattern perception" goes a bit too far in my opinion.

that isn't the scenario Norcal asked about.

 

[JMartJr]

A lie, rather than a mistake, would be a terrible gambit, because the optics upon discovery are even worse.

Depends on your target audience, I'd say. IF your target audience were to value a good story that reinforces what they would like to be true, and values it strongly enough, then whether the story is true ,and if not whether this is due to error or mendacity, might not matter too much.

 

[scombrid]

The motive doesn't matter from a debunking standpoint and speculating about the motive is counterproductive. It suffices for the debunk to do what FatPhil did and specify in simple terms the error and why that undermines credibility. If such a basic and large error is made then that is enough to undermine the credibility of the story irrespective of why the error was made. Full stop. The why of the error is outside the purview of practical debunking. I'm just frustrated with the repetition of easily debunked UFO and other claims; birds, bugs, light Pilars, etc... where it appears that the creator of the video knew or should have known what they filmed and then the video is passed credulously from person to person until it is featured as something special in mainstream pop culture.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm just frustrated with the repetition of easily debunked UFO and other claims; birds, bugs, light Pilars, etc... where it appears that the creator of the video knew or should have known what they filmed and then the video is passed credulously from person to person until it is featured as something special in mainstream pop culture.

But then, that's the whole point of the film, isn't it? The creator is a regular on Ancient Aliens. Many of the UAPx guys with legit PhDs are a hell of a lot smarter than me, but they want to believe. They throw out things like the Chilian Air Force sighting, clearly debunked, as yet more evidence of UAPs.

So, when the capture some sort of slightly strange FLIR video, they go straight to "wormhole" as the likely explanation.

 

[Ann K]

The motive doesn't matter from a debunking standpoint...

True.

...and speculating about the motive is counterproductive.

I'm not so sure that's true if we are speculating about whether there's a motive. If, say, a person has been known to fake a UFO in the past and gain from it (money, attention), it's going to cause debunkers to take a very hard look at it indeed. I recall someone mentioned on this site who was very clever at making models that, when photographed, were extremely convincing, and that knowledge about the person provides a lead to debunking future presentations by him. I'll see if I can find the reference.

(edit) Aha! The thread is

2007 Costa Rica UFO

 

[Mendel]

(edit) Aha! The thread is

2007 Costa Rica UFO

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2007-costa-rica-ufo.11775/post-259551

 

[flarkey]

Update from UAPx, they've Identified two anomalous events as prosaic...

https://www.uapexpedition.org/post/...events-featured-in-the-film-a-tear-in-the-sky

Likely Explanations Uncovered for Two Ambiguities: Laguna Beach / Catalina Expedition

Prof. Matthew Szydagis, UAlbany SUNY – Probable explanations have been found for two ambiguous events featured in the documentary film A Tear in the Sky, produced by Omnium Media and directed by Caroline Cory. The first is the non-blinking, quiet spheroid shape observed over the city of Avalon on Catalina Island on Wednesday night, July 14, 2021 using night vision goggles. Our research suggests that the object was most likely the ISS (International Space Station) and unrelated to both the object observed in the OSIRIS vehicle later the same night, as well as the collection of cold temperature pixels in the FLIR observed at approximately the same time.

Our second explanation involves the white (false color, meaning hot) streaks called "tic tac rain," which appeared to be small objects falling out of the sky into the water of the Catalina Channel at high velocity. This interpretation is unlikely to be correct, due to extensive discussions with two, independently consulted, Teledyne FLIR camera experts who have reviewed the relevant videos taken during the expedition, involving events occurring at 6:26 and 9:21 am Pacific the morning of Thursday, July 15, 2021. The streaks represent known camera glitches for the model of FLIR used, namely column-correlated temporal noise or simply columnar noise for short. The reason they were not solid offsets for the entire column (looking more like dashes) was due to interactions with other filters.

I for one think this is a welcome development. Getting UAP organisation to find and accept prosaic explanations such as this is a step forward. I cant see the SCU doing the same regarding their Aguadilla investigation.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I for one think this is a welcome development. Getting UAP organisation to find and accept prosaic explanations such as this is a step forward.

Indeed, though the timing does give a bit of a win-win. Cory's film gets to keep showing ambiguous events, keeping up the mystery, while the UAPx folks can preemptively blunt the debunkers if anyone looks to closely.

MY friend often sends me updates about watching the ISS fly overs days in advance. There is several apps for tracking it. The UAPx people are aware of sites like Metabunk and they mention Mick by name. I would have to think at least some of them are aware that the ISS has figured in various claims of UAP sightings, right?

And yet, it's taken them nearly 6 months since the release of the film to realize they were filming the ISS? That's just the time from the film coming out. As this is presented in the film, they were clearly looking at it during the making of the film, so even longer ago. It would seem that ISS is something like a tracked commercial flight and near the top of the list of possible things to eliminate first. It's known to be mistaken for a UAP and is easily tracked.

From watching their YouTube presentation and reading Szydagis' article, the way they throw old cases around as if they are completely factual seems to foster a UAP first conclusion about much of what they see in the sky. Only later is it reluctantly investigated.

 

[Mick West]

From watching their YouTube presentation and reading Szydagis' article, the way they throw old cases around as if they are completely factual seems to foster a UAP first conclusion about much of what they see in the sky. Only later is it reluctantly investigated.

Hopefully these prosaic discoveries will help tilt them away from that somewhat.

UAPx has an interesting history, being formed by people involved in the Nimitz incident. Seemingly both as a kind of personal interest and validation, and also with the idea of financially capitalizing on the attention they were getting. It's been though quite a variety of team members and proposed projects since inception, but does seem still have a pro-anomalous bias.